Why Doesn't the Media Give the Same Credit to AIDS Dissidents That They Give Climate Change Deniers?

Back in March of 2006 Harper's Magazine published a fifteen page article titled "Out of Control, AIDS and the Corruption of Medical Science (subscription)." The article by Celia Farber laid out the case of so-called "AIDS Dissidents" who posit the notion that HIV does not cause AIDS. She discussed research that purportedly backed up the claim, and even had a prominent researcher vouch for the theory. The New York Times covered the furor over the article here.

The case of AIDS dissidents is at least as strong as the case of climate change deniers. That is to say: not strong at all. We can say, without much consternation, and without provoking a media-made controversy, that HIV does, in fact, cause AIDS, and the "AIDS dissident" theory is a bunch of bunk.

But why does the mainstream media not treat the AIDS dissidents as though they have a legitimate gripe with the state of AIDS science? Why doesn't the mainstream media treat the dissenting scientists as though they have a valid point? Why aren't AIDS dissidents discussed in heroic terms with comparisons to Galileo like climate change deniers by politicians? Mind you, I am not suggesting that the media or politicians take up the cause of AIDS dissent. Such would pose a grave risk to public health, and it is good that, thus far, the media and politicians have ignored the AIDS dissidents.

But let's draw the analogy to the way the media covers climate change. While the overwhelming vast majority of scientists agree with anthropogenic global warming theory, the mainstream media and conservative politicians insist that there is a valid unsettled scientific controversy here. Why? They have been able to find a handful of scientists who disagree with anthropogenic global warming. They have pointed to research that purports to disprove or cast doubt on the theory.

Sure, the research may be shoddy or easily debunked, but so is the research supporting AIDS dissidents. It is the existence of a handful of dissenting scientists and shoddy research that supposedly gives legitimacy to climate change denialists; so why doesn't the existence of the same exact things give legitimacy to AIDS dissidents? Both AIDS dissidents and climate change denialists claim that the mainstream science is somehow corrupt, that the mainstream view is some kind of hoax, that we are being lied to in some sort of global conspiracy by scientists and governments, and of course, the truth is out there.

So why the significant difference in the media in the way the two claims are covered?  In the mainstream media even bad research is enough to keep climate change denialists in the papers and in primetime slots on cable news discussion shows. It is all about being "Fair and Balanced." Objective truth is not part of the equation.

The explanation for why climate change denialists are treated with legitimacy but not AIDS dissidents is that, as of now, neither major political party has taken up the cause of the AIDS dissidents in the way the GOP has taken up the cause of climate change denialists. The GOP supports climate change denialists because they rely on big corporate backers who don't want to be subject to regulations that may be necessary to control greenhouse gas emissions.

Controversy is good for the media. It increases circulation in print, raises ratings on TV, and increases page views on websites. While controversy is good for the media, and the political and corporate interests invested in casting doubt in climate science, it is as bad for the well-being of the public as AIDS dissent is for public health. The only real difference is that no one has, as of now, found a way to make AIDS dissent a political cause. The media should be honest when covering climate denialism. They should acknowledge that it is not a scientific controversy but a political one.